BARDEX II: Bringing the Laboratory to the Beach – Again!
1
BARDEX II: Bringing the beach to the laboratory – again!
Gerd Masselink†, Ian Turner‡, Daniel Conley†, Gerben Ruessink∞, Ana Matias§, Charlie Thompson+,
Bruno Castelle# and Guido Wolters@
†School of Marine Science and
Engineering, University of Plymouth,
Plymouth, PL4 8AA, UK
g.masselink@plymouth.ac.uk
daniel.conley@plymouth.ac.uk
‡ School of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of New South
Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
ian.turner@unsw.edu.au
∞Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht
+CIACOMAR, Universidade do Algarve,
Avenida 16 Junho, s/n, 8700-311 Olhão,
Portugal
ammatias@ualg.pt
+Ocean and Earth Science,
University of Southampton,
European Way, Southampton, SO14
3ZH, UK
celt1@noc.soton.ac.uk
#CNRS, Université Bordeaux 1, UMR
5805-EPOC Avenue des Facultés, F33405, Talence, France
b.castelle@epoc.u-bordeaux1.fr
University, Utrecht, 3508 TC, The
Netherlands
B.G.Ruessink@uu.nl
www.cerf-jcr.org
@Deltares, Rotterdamseweg 185, Delft,
2629 HD Delft, The Netherlands
Guido.Wolters@deltares.nl
ABSTRACT
www.JCRonline.org
Masselink, G., Turner, I.L., Conley, D.C., Ruessink, B.G., Matias, A., Thompson, C., Castelle, B. and Wolters, G.,
2013. BARDEX II: Bringing the beach to the laboratory – again! In: Conley, D.C., Masselink, G., Russell, P.E. and
O’Hare, T.J. (eds.), Proceedings 12th International Coastal Symposium (Plymouth, England), Journal of Coastal
Research, Special Issue No. 65, pp. xxx-xxx, ISSN 0749-0208.
Proto-type laboratory experiments are particularly useful in coastal research when forcing parameters are modified in a
way that is impossible to achieve in the field, and where installation and maintenance of instrumentation requires
absence of waves. In 2008, the Barrier Dynamics Experiment (BARDEX) took place in the Delta Flume, the
Netherlands. This project, funded by Hydralab III, focused on the effect of varying wave, sea level and beach
groundwater conditions on a gravel beach (D50 = 10 mm). In 2012, a similar project was carried out, referred to as
BARDEX II, this time funded by Hydralab IV and on a sandy beach (D50 = 0.42 mm). During the experiment, a 4.5-m
high and 70-m wide sandy barrier was constructed in the flume with a lagoon situated to the landward. The barrier was
instrumented with a very large number (> 200) of instruments and subjected to a range of wave conditions (Hs = 0.8 m;
Tp = 4–12 s) and varying sea and lagoon water levels. Five distinct test series were executed over a 20-day period: series
A focused on beach response due to accretionary/erosive wave conditions and a high/low lagoon water level; series B
investigated the effect of a lower sea level on nearshore bar dynamics; series C simulated tidal effects; series D
addressed the swash/overtopping/overwash threshold; and during series E the beach-barrier system was subjected to an
extended period of energetic overwash conditions. This paper will describe the experimental design and the test
programme during BARDEX II.
ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS: Proto-type experiment, swash, breaking waves, berm, nearshore sediment
transport, hydrology, overwash.
INTRODUCTION
Sand and gravel barriers are natural means of coastal protection
against flooding, whilst at the same time representing porous
boundaries that connect the terrestrial groundwater table with sea
level. Two key processes that are of particular relevance to these
two functions, and for which our understanding is far from
complete, are overwash during extreme wave and water-level
conditions and cross-barrier groundwater fluxes. Accurate
prediction of the occurrence and morphological consequence of
overwash is of obvious importance for coastal flood risk
assessment and management (Matias et al., 2008). Equally
apparent is the relevance of being able to quantify and model
cross-barrier groundwater fluxes, for example for assessing the
dispersal of pollutants from coastal aquifers into the sea (Andersen
et al., 2007) and saline intrusion as a result of sea-level rise. A less
obvious, but potentially significant and related process is the effect
____________________
DOI: 10.2112/SI65-xxx.1 received Day Month 2012; accepted Day
Month 2013.
© Coastal Education & Research Foundation 2013
of interactions between the beach groundwater table and swash
motion on sediment transport processes on the upper beach
(Turner and Masselink, 1998) and, therefore, beach stability.
These interactions are strongly controlled by the elevation of the
beach groundwater table relative to sea level, and it is often
considered that a low water table promotes beach stability, while a
high water table has a destabilising effect on the beach.
In 2008, the large-scale Barrier Dynamics Experiment
(BARDEX), funded under the Hydralab III programme, was
successfully completed in the Delta Flume to investigate overwash
processes, cross-barrier groundwater fluxes and the role of the
beach groundwater table on beach stability (Williams et al., 2012).
BARDEX involved placing a near prototype-scale gravel barrier
(height 4.5 m; width 30 m) in the middle of the flume and
subjecting the structure to a range of wave, tide and water level
conditions. A unique aspect of BARDEX was the presence of a
lagoon behind the barrier, as commonly occurs in natural barrier
settings, providing a convenient means to experimentally
manipulate the groundwater hydrology within the barrier.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013
2
Masselink, et al.
The main BARDEX partners considered it appropriate and
timely to carry out a second experiment in the Delta Flume, but
this time on a sandy barrier. Funding was obtained under the
Hydralab IV programme and the project, named BARDEX II to
acknowledge its pedigree, was carried out from May to July 2012.
The data set collected during BARDEX II is not only relevant
in providing direct comparison with the gravel barrier data set
(thereby providing added value to BARDEX), but the sandy barrier
data is also important in its own right by providing fundamental
new information on cross-shore sediment transport processes in
the nearshore zone of sandy beaches. Specifically, in addition to
explicitly addressing the effect of swash/groundwater interactions
to sediment transport and morphological development in the
swash zone, the project also investigates the sediment exchange
between the swash and surf zone and, related, the dynamics of
nearshore bar systems. It is generally accepted that mean offshoredirected flows are responsible for beach erosion and offshore bar
migration under energetic wave conditions, but there is
considerable debate in the literature as to what causes beach
accretion and onshore bar migration under calm wave conditions.
There have been a number of processes proposed that may be
implicated in onshore sediment transport and bar migration,
including: (1) onshore mass flux due to cell circulation (Aagaard
et al., 2006); (2) sediment stratification (Falchetti et al., 2010); (3)
turbulence associated with breaking waves and bores (Butt et al.,
2004); (4) cross-shore velocity skewness (‘wave skewness’;
Marino-Tapia et al., 2007); (5) cross-shore velocity acceleration
skewness (‘wave asymmetry’; Hoefel and Elgar, 2003); (6)
ventilated boundary layer (Conley and Inman, 1992); and (7) plug
flow due to horizontal pressure gradients (Foster et al., 2006).
These different processes are not necessarily mutually exclusive
and all, except (1), are addressed during BARDEX II.
Five key objectives were identified, each of them linked to a
specific Work Package (WP):
 WP1 – barrier hydrology (led by University of New South
Wales): to observe, quantify and model the dynamic
groundwater conditions within the barrier, subject to varying
wave, water-level and back-barrier lagoon conditions.
 WP2 – swash and berm dynamics (led by University of
Plymouth): to examine the relative roles of advected boregenerated turbulence versus local boundary layer processes in
the full column sediment transport processes in the swash
zone; to resolve the role of barrier hydrology in controlling
equilibrium morphological response at the beach face.
 WP3 – swash-surf zone exchange and bar dynamics (led by
Utrecht University): to determine and quantify the dominant
hydrodynamic and sediment transport mechanisms responsible
for swash-surf zone sediment exchange; to identify key
processes responsible for onshore and offshore bar migration.
 WP4 – barrier overwash (led by University of Algarve): to
quantify overwash threshold for different wave and waterlevel conditions; to investigate the effect of groundwater
gradients on overwash processes; to compare overwash
processes on sand and gravel barriers.
 WP5 – Sediment re-suspension and bed morphology (led
by University of Southampton): to observe and measure
vortex re-suspension process and bedform dynamics under
shoaling and breaking waves; to quantify changes in the
magnitude and direction of sediment transport (bedload and
suspended load) in the region just outside the surf zone.
 WP6 – numerical modeling (led by University of Bordeaux):
to further develop and rigorously test advanced process-based
cross-shore hydro-morphodynamic models that address bar
Figure 1. Delta Flume cross-section with barrier profile at the
start of the experiment and location of Deltares instrumentation.
PT = pressure transducer; EMCM = electromagnetic current
meter. Horizontal lines show water levels used.
and barrier dynamics, and barrier destruction through
overwash.
The present paper provides a description of the BARDEX II
experiment, including the experimental set-up, instrumentation
used and test programme, and provides an introduction to 6
subsequent papers, each covering one of the BARDEX II WPs.
Collectively, these papers constituted a special session held during
the 2013 International Coastal Symposium, and all papers are
published in this Special Issue of the Journal of Coastal Research
(Castelle et al., 2013; Conley et al., 2013; Matias et al., 2013;
Ruessink et al., 2013; Thompson et al., 2013; Turner et al., 2013).
METHODS
Experimental Set-Up
A 4.5-m high sandy barrier was constructed in the Delta Flume,
with the crest of the barrier located at x = 110 m from the wave
paddle (Figure 1). With a default sea level of 3 m, this means that
the barrier crest was located 1.5 m above MSW. Medium-sized
sand with a median diameter D50 of 0.42 mm was used (D10 = 0.26
mm; D90 = 0.90 mm). The sediment was selected to provide
sufficient hydraulic conductivity K for significant horizontal
(through-barrier) and vertical (through-bed) groundwater flows (K
= 0.0005–0.001 m s-1), but not too coarse a sediment to inhibit
sediment re-suspension and nearshore bar formation.
The barrier was composed of a number of distinct profile
sections: (1) a concrete toe at x = 24-29 m; (2) a 20-m wide,
horizontal section with a 0.5-m thick sand layer at x = 29-49 m;
(3) a 60-m wide, 1:15 seaward-sloping section at x = 49-109 m;
(4) a 5-m wide crest at x =109-114 m; and (5) a 10-m wide, 1:5
landward-sloping section at x = 114-124 m. A 5-m high retaining
wall was used to separate the back-barrier slope from a 10-m wide
lagoon at x = 125-135 m. This wall was constructed out of a steel
mesh (grid size = 0.05 x 0.05 m) shrouded on both sides with two
layers of 180 micron geotextile cloth, to allow water to move
freely between back-barrier slope and lagoon, but prevent the
ingress of sand into the lagoon during overwash tests. The lagoon
was separated from a large water reservoir that extended from x =
135 m to the end of the Delta Flume, at c. x = 180 m by an
impermeable gate.
To regulate the water levels in the Delta Flume, four computercontrolled pumps were used: (1) sea to lagoon; (2) lagoon to sea;
(3) reservoir to lagoon; and (4) lagoon to reservoir. Each pump
had a maximum capacity of 100 l s-1 and the discharge of the
pumps between sea and lagoon were recorded to enable
quantification of across-barrier water fluxes.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013
BARDEX II: Bringing the Laboratory to the Beach – Again!
3
Figure 2. Photos showing key elements of the experimental set-up during BARDEX II. (a) Overview of the Delta Flume looking from
trolley above crest of the barrier towards the wave paddle, 120 m distant. (b) Barrier under construction showing several groundwater
wells affixed to the flume wall. (c) Construction of retaining wall separating the back of the barrier from the lagoon. (d) Pump system
showing all inlets/outlets to/from the lagoon. (e) Surf zone turbulence rig. (f) Self-logging pressure sensor for measuring surf zone
water levels. (g) An Argus video system, comprising 3 cameras, was mounted at a height of c. 5 above the barrier crest. (h) Underwater
video camera flush mounted with the bed collocated with electromagnetic and acoustic current meters for making detailed
measurements of hydro- and sediment-dynamics in the boundary layer. (i) Offshore rig with a range of acoustic instruments to monitor
sediment re-suspension and bedform dynamics. (j) Photo taking through the scaffold rig showing numerous vertically-mounted
electromagnetic and acoustic current meters. (k) View inside one of the measurement cabins with more than 15 laptops that were used
simultaneously during the experiment to record the data, presenting significant data management challenges.
Instruments and Measurements
A suite of instruments and sampling devices were deployed
during the experiment (Figures 2 and 3). The instrumentation
provided by the facility included a large number (> 20) of pressure
transducers (PT) for recording water levels in the barrier and the
sea, 13 wall-mounted electromagnetic current meters (EMCM) for
recording flow velocities, 3 video cameras for measuring wave
transformation and run-up, and a high-resolution bed profiler
mounted off the carriage for recording beach morphology. Data
from the PTs and EMCMs were collected at 20 Hz by the central
Delta Flume computer. Beach profiles were recorded at various
intervals, ranging from every 10 minutes to every hour.
A large amount of additional instruments contributed by the
Project Partners were deployed:
 Within the barrier – Electric conductivity probes and
thermistors were used to measure through-barrier movement.
In addition, 4 pairs of high-precision PTs, deployed in
piezometer tubes, were used to resolve instantaneous
groundwater fluxes at the beachface.
 Swash zone – Equipment for recording swash flows,
suspended sediment fluxes and bed-level changes was
deployed from a large scaffold rig comprising 6 EMCMs, 6
acoustic Doppler velocimeters (ADV), 6 optical backscatter
sensors (OBS), 8 PTs, 45 acoustic altimeters and 6 sheetflow
Figure 3. Close-up of the barrier profile showing the locations of
the instruments provided to BARDEX II by the Project Partners:
UNSW = University of New South Wales; UoP = University of
Plymouth; UoS = University of Southampton; and UU = Utrecht
University.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013
4
Masselink, et al.
probes. In addition, a thermal camera and 2 LIDARs were
used to remotely monitor swash motion.
 Surf zone – Equipment for measuring nearshore mean flows,
wave velocities, turbulence and suspended sediment
concentrations deployed from a 3 wall-mounted rigs, and
comprising 3 ADVs, 2 EMCMs, 3 PTs and 9 OBSs. In
addition, a 3D sector scanning sonar (3DSS) was deployed to
monitor bedforms in the surf zone.
 Shoaling wave zone – A single measurement rig was
deployed just beyond the zone of breaking waves to measure
hydrodynamics, sediment re-suspension and bedforms under
shoaling waves. The rig comprised solely of acoustic devices
and included 2 ADVs, 2 sand ripple profilers (SRP), an
acoustic backscatter sensor (ABS) and a 3DSS.
Data collected with these additional instruments were logged at
frequencies ranging from 8 to 64 Hz using a suite of laptops and
data loggers. All laptops were time-synced to a precision GPS
clock network.
Experimental Programme
An overview of the test programme is provided in Table 1.
The programme comprises 5 different test series that were
sequenced such that they represent an increased level of
complexity:
 Series A – The objective of this test series was to determine
the effect of high and low lagoon level, and therefore high and
low beach groundwater table, on swash sediment transport
processes and beach profile development. Two different wave
conditions (accretion and erosion) and three different lagoon
levels (low, medium and high) were used.
 Series B – During this test the effect of lowering the sea level
on nearshore bar development was addressed. Accretionary
wave conditions were used.
 Series C – To investigate tidal effects on beach profile
development, the sea level was varied over a 1.5-m range over
a 12-hour tidal cycle with the beach subjected to accretionary
wave conditions. To enhance the effect of tidal asymmetry, the
rising tide was executed with a low lagoon level and the
falling tide with a high lagoon level.
 Series D – During this test series, the water level was
incrementally raised by 0.15-m intervals for 7 different wave
Figure 4. Photo sequence showing turbulent bore going through
the scaffold rig during overwash test series E.
Table 1. Overview of the experimental programme. Hs =
significant wave height; Tp = peak wave period; hs = water
depth in the sea; and hl = water depth in the lagoon.
Test
Hs (m)
Tp (s)
hs (m)
hl (m)
Test series A: Beach response to varying wave conditions and
different lagoon levels; no tide
0.8
8
3
3 – 3.4
A1
0.8
8
3
4.3
A2
0.8
8
3
4.3
A3
0.3 – 0.8 8 – 12
3
1.75
A5
0.8
8
3
1.75
A4
0.6
12
3
3
A6
0.6
12
3
4.25
A7
0.6
12
3
1.75
A8
Test series B: Bar dynamics due to different sea levels; no tide
0.8
8
3
1.75
B1
0.8
8
2.5
1.75
B2
Test series C: Beach response to varying wave conditions with
tide (30-min data segments)
0.8, 0.6
8
2.25 → 3.65
1.75
C1
0.8, 0.6
8
3.53 → 2.25
4.25
C2
Test series D: Identification of overtopping/overwash
threshold; increase sea level until overwash occurs (20-min
data segments)
0.8
4
3.15 → 4.2
1.75
D1
0.8
5
3.45 → 4.05
1.75
D2
0.8
6
3.45 → 3.9
1.75
D3
0.8
7
3.45 → 3.9
1.75
D4
0.8
8
3.45 → 3.75
1.75
D5
0.8
9
3.30 → 3.75
1.75
D6
0.8
10
3.15 → 3.6
1.75
D7
Test series E: Barrier overwash (13-min data segments)
0.8
8
3.9
1.75
E1
conditions (constant height, but variable period) to achieve a
sequence of swash – overtopping – overwash. For each test
conditions, 20-min of wave action was used.
 Series E – During this final test series of the experiment, the
sea level was set just beyond the overwash threshold and the
barrier was exposed to consecutive 13-min segments of
energetic overwash wave conditions (Figure 4). These
conditions resulted in progressive lowering of the bar crest and
sediment transport across the barrier crest into the back-barrier
region.
The wave paddle steering signal was a JONSWAP spectrum
specified using significant wave height Hs and peak wave period
Tp. To enable comparison between different tests within the same
test series, for tests with the same wave forcing (Hs and Tp), the
identical wave steering signal was used. The wave steering signals
were segmented to allow frequent interruption of the wave forcing
for beach profile measurement, and also for instrument
maintenance to ensure that near-bed measurements were being
made. Wave reflection in the flume was suppressed by turning the
Automated Reflection Compensator (ARC) on. During most tests
of test series A, random wave action was followed by 5 minutes of
monochromatic waves and 15 minutes of bi-chromatic waves.
During test series C a tidal cycle was simulated. The tidal
signal was a ‘proper’ sinusoid with amplitude of 0.75 m and a
period of 12 hrs, but the signal was ‘cut’ into 30-min segments,
each with a constant water depth. This was required because
otherwise the ARC could not be engaged which would have
resulted in significant seiching in the tank. The maximum
difference in water level between two consecutive 30-min
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013
BARDEX II: Bringing the Laboratory to the Beach – Again!
segments was 0.2 m. The JONSWAP wave steering signal for
each segment was identical, although adjusted for water depth, to
ensure that any recorded morphological changes were not due to
changing wave conditions.
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Various aspects of the experiment are discussed by other papers
published in this special issue of JCR (Castelle et al., 2013 –
numerical modelling; Conley et al., 2013 – swash dynamics;
Matias et al., 2013 – barrier overwash; Ruessink et al., 2013 – surf
zone turbulence; Thompson et al., 2013 – bedform dynamics;
Turner et al., 2013 – barrier hydrology); here, some results
obtained by the profiler are presented to provide an overview of
the observed morphological response during the experiment.
Figure 5 summarises the 4 main morphological responses:
 Bar formation – Erosive conditions prevailed during #A1–
A4. After c. 16 hours of erosive wave action, a small berm
developed above MSL at x = 90–100 m, but the prevailing
morphological development was the formation of a nearshore
bar around x = 70 m. The bar formed mainly as a result of
offshore sediment transport in the surf zone and was the focus
of wave breaking throughout these tests.
 Berm formation – Accretionary conditions during #A6–A8
caused onshore sediment transport, resulting in the
disappearance of the pre-existing nearshore bar and the
formation of a very pronounced berm at x = 90–105 m. After
5
11 hours of accretionary wave action, the height of the berm
above the original profile was c. 1 m and the beachface
gradient had increased from 1:15 to 1:6.
 Further berm building – During the tidal test series C, the
sea level varied between 2.25 and 3.65 m. Not much change
occurred in the subtidal area, but over the 12-hour tidal cycle
the pre-existing berm developed further with wave runup
during high tide inducing vertical accretion. The sediment for
this berm accretion was sourced from the lower beachface,
where erosion prevailed.
 Overtopping and overwash – Almost 12 hours of wave
conditions around the overtopping/overwash threshold were
simulated (test series D) culminating in just over one hour of
continuous and energetic barrier overwash (test series E). Over
this period, a subdued nearshore bar developed around x = 80
m, but, more importantly, the shoreline retreated by markedly
and c. 10m3 per unit meter beach width was transferred from
the beachface to the back of the barrier by overtopping and
overwash processes.
Figure 6 shows the time series of the berm volume, computed
over the region x = 85–110 m, during the phase of berm formation
with the symbols indicating the different tests. The data show a
progressive, almost linear, build-up of the berm over a 13-hour
period (t = 900–1700 min) during the accretionary wave
conditions of test series A. The berm volume stabilised during the
test series B, whilst during the tidal test series C the berm reduced
Figure 5. Morphological response during: erosive tests of series A (#A1–A5); accretionary tests of series A (#A6–A8) and series B
(#B1 and #B2); tidal tests of series C (#C1 and #C2); and overtopping and overwashing tests of series D (#D1–D7) and E (#E1).
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013
6
Masselink, et al.
to the project, comprising 30 days for barrier construction and
installation of instruments and pumps, 20 experiment days and 8
days for decommissioning the experiment. Almost 30 researchers
from 9 countries were involved with the project and c. 10 staff
from Deltares provided technical. The total budget for the project
was c. 250k Euro and includes, amongst others, 32k Euro for sand,
14k Euro for constructing retaining wall, 27k Euro for pump hire
and 30k Euro for travel and subsistence. The complete data set
with data report will be made available by the end of 2013.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work described in this publication was supported by the
European Community's 7th Framework Programme through the
grant to the budget of the Integrating Activity HYDRALAB IV,
contract no. 261520.
LITERATURE CITED
Figure 6. Time series of sediment volume Q of the berm region
(x = 85–110 m) computed relative to that at the start of the
experiment. The time axis represents the cumulative
experimental time in minutes since the start of the experiment.
in volume. What is particularly noteworthy is that there is no
apparent difference in beach morphological response between the
high and low lagoon level tests (cf., #A7/#A8 and #C1/#C2).
Finally, Figure 7 shows the morphological response during the
overwash test series E. With a sea level at 3.9 m, many waves
resulted in overwash, resulting in a lowering of the barrier crest
and sediment transport from the front of the beach to the back of
the barrier. Similar to observations during BARDEX (Matias et al.,
2012), barrier crest lowering was enhanced by positive feedback
through the positive link between the reduction in barrier
freeboard and the increase in overwash frequency. After only 5
brief (13-min) segments of energetic overwash conditions, the
overwash volume was so great that water started flowing landward
across the barrier crest, and the experiment was terminated.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The BARDEX II experiment took place over a 3-month period
from May to July 2012. A total of 58 project days were allocated
Figure 7. Morphological response of the barrier during test
series E, showing progressive erosion of the beachface, lowering
of the barrier crest and deposition in the back-barrier region.
Aagaard, T., Hughes, M., Møller-Sørensen, R. and Andersen, S., 2006.
Hydrodynamics and sediment fluxes across an onshore migrating
intertidal bar. Journal of Coastal Research, 22, 247-259.
Andersen, M.S., Baron, L., Gudbjerg, J., Gregerson, J., Chapellier, D.,
Jakobsen, R. and Postma, D., 2007. Nitrate-rich groundwater
discharging into a coastal marine environment. Journal of Hydrology,
336, 98-114.
Bonneton, P., Chazel, F., Lannes, D, Marche, F. and Tissier, M., 2009. A
splitting approach for the fully nonlinear and weakly dispersive GreenNaghdi model. Journal of Computing Physics, 230, 279-298.
Butt, T., Russell, P. E., Puleo, J, Miles, J. and Masselink, G., 2004.
Influence of bore turbulence on sediment transport in the swash and
inner surf zones. Continental Shelf Research, 24, 757-771.
Castelle, B., Marieu, V., Bonneton, P., Bruneau, N. and Grasso, F., 2010.
Modelling beach profile evolutions. La Houille Blanche, 1, 104-110.
Conley, D.C. and Inman, D.L., 1992. Field observations of the boundary
layer under near breaking waves. Journal of Geophysical Research, 97,
C6, 9631-9643.
Falchetti, S., Conley, D.C., Brocchini, M. and Elgar, S., 2010. Nearshore
bar migration and sediment-induced buoyancy effects. Continental
Shelf Research, 30, 226-238.
Foster, D.L., Bowen, A.J., Holman, R.A. and Natoo, P., 2006. Field
evidence of pressure gradient induced incipient motion. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 111, C05004.
Hoefel, F. and Elgar, S., 2003. Wave-induced sediment transport and bar
migration. Science, 299, 1885-1887.
Marino-Tapia, I.J., Russell, P.E., O’Hare, T.J., Davidson, M.A. and
Huntley, D.A., 2007. Cross-shore sediment transport on natural beaches
and its relation to sand bar migration patterns: 1. Field observations and
derivation of a transport parameterization. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 112, CO3001.
Masselink, G. and Turner, I.L., 2012. Large-scale laboratory investigation
into the effect of varying back-barrier lagoon water levels on gravel
beach morphology and swash zone sediment transport. Coastal
Engineering, 63, 23-38.
Matias, A., Ferreira, O, Vila-Concejo, A., Garcia, T. and Alveirinho
Dias,J., 2008. Classification of washover dynamics in barrier islands.
Geomorphology, 97, 655-674.
Matias, A., Williams, J., Ferreira, O. and Masselink, G., 2012. Barrier
overwash Coastal Engineering, 63, 48-61.
Roelvink, J.A., Reniers, A., van Dongeren, A., van Thiel de Vries, J.,
McCall, R. and Lescinski, J., 2009. Modeling storm impacts on beaches,
dunes and barrier islands. Coastal Engineering, 56, 133-152.
Turner, I.L. and Masselink, G., 1998. Swash infiltration-exfiltration and
sediment transport. Journal of Geophysical Research, 103, 30,813–
30,824.
Turner, I.L. and Masselink, G., 2012. Barrier coastal gravel barrier
hydrology – observations from a prototype-scale laboratory experiment
(BARDEX). Coastal Engineering, 63, 13-22.
Williams, J., Buscombe, D., Masselink, G., Turner, I.L. and Swinkels, C.,
2012. Barrier Dynamics Experiment (BARDEX): Aims, design and
procedures. Coastal Engineering, 63, 3-12.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013
BARDEX II: Bringing the Laboratory to the Beach – Again!
ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING
PAPER FOR ICS2013 PROCEEEDINGS (WITH
THANKS TO ICS2011 ORGANISERS FOR
PROVIDING SOME OF THIS MATERIAL)
General comment
It can be quite a frustrating task to put your paper in the
prescribed JCR format because Word’s handling of tables, figures
and text boxes is not always obvious. Unfortunately, it is not
uncommon for figures and tables, and even bits of text, to jump
around the document quite unpredictably whilst compiling your
paper. We have tried our best to make this task as easy as possible
by providing this template and set of instructions. Also, by putting
figures and captions together in a figure-table, with all the
appropriate horizontal lines, it makes it easier to move things
around. At all time, try to ‘hard-wire’ the position of tables
through the Table Properties tab, rather than manually positioning
them. As a general piece of advice, don’t start putting together the
paper until you have finalised your text, figures, tables, captions
and references. Once you have your text, use the template as the
basis for replacing the template text and figures with your
material. Good luck!
Page Lay-Out
The page size for all papers must be A4 (not US letter). Margins
are set at: top = 3.5 cm, top = 2.5 cm and left/right = 1.75 cm.
Headers are different from first page, odd and even pages, but are
all formatted as tables placed 2 cm from the top of the page (even
though the actual header itself is set at 1.25 cm from the top of the
page – the table formatting guidelines override this). The footer is
placed 1.25 cm from the bottom of the page. Don’t change the
page numbers – we will have to do this manually when all papers
are finalised. The ‘DOI and paper received/accepted’ text box at
the bottom left of the first page should be left anchored at this
position. Please enter the day and the month you submit the paper
under the ‘received Day Month 2012’ section. We will enter the day
and month under the ‘accepted Day Month 2013’ section later.
Units of Measure
The S.I. system (le System International d' Unites) of reporting
measurements, as established by the International Organization for
Standardization in 1960, is required insofar as practical. Other
units may be reported in parentheses or as the primary units when
it would be impossible or inconvenient to convert to S.I.
Equivalent units may be given in parentheses when tables, figures,
and maps retain units of the English system (Customary units).
Equations
Please provide adequate space for entering printing and coding
instructions around equations and between lines of a given
equation. Keep in mind that elaborate equations often extend over
several lines with many breaks. Alternatively, it may be
advantageous to group long equations into a table which can run
across the full width of the page, thus allowing clearer
presentation. Right-justify the paragraph with the equation and the
equation number, and maximize the space between equation and
its number using tabs. The equation paragraph has no indents and
no additional space above or below it.
Rx
 
 
 C1  C2    C3  
R0
 
 
2
7
How to Cite in the Text?
Citations are generally treated according to the ‘Harvard
System’. In the body of the text, they are cited by naming the
author (or authors connected by ‘and’ if two, or first author name
followed by ‘et al.’ if more than two authors) and indicating the
year of publication. Enclose the citation in parentheses if referring
to indirectly (e.g., ‘(Jones, 1988)’), or enclose the year of
publication in parentheses if referring to directly (e.g., ‘from data
prepared by Smith et al. (1989)’).
Literature Cited
Papers cited should be grouped together in a list headed
‘Literature Cited’ (not ‘References’ or ‘Bibliography’)
alphabetically arranged by first authors' surnames, but
unnumbered, at the end of the body of the paper. There all authors'
names and initials are required, followed by the date (year) of
publication and the full title of the paper. Then follows the full
title of the periodical in italic, then the volume in Arabic numerals,
and finally the page spread. Sometimes page numbers are not
available (e.g., papers in Journal of Geophysical Research) and in
this case the article number should be provided. For books the title
is in italic, and then the bare name of the publisher proceeded by
the place (city and state or country) of publication, followed by the
number of pages.
Please check the accuracy of your references scrupulously.
Many papers arrive at a reviewer's desk with incorrect dates, titles,
and author names in reference lists; or one year of publication or
spelling of the author's name in the reference list and another in
the text citation. Responsibility for accuracy rests solely with the
author. Examples of citation formats are provided below.
Paper in Journal
McCave, I.N., 1987. Fine sediment sources and sinks around the
East Anglian coast (UK). Journal Geological Society London,
144, 149-152.
Lidz, B.H. and Hallock, P., 2000. Sedimentary petrology of a
declining reef ecosystem, Florida Reef Tract (U.S.A.). Journal
of Coastal Research, 16, 675-697.
Martinez, J.O., Gonzalez, J.L., Pilkey, O.H. and Neal, W.J., 2000.
Barrier island evolution on the subsiding central Pacific Coast,
Colombia, S.A. Journal of Coastal Research, 16, 663-674.
Paper in Proceedings with No Editor
Butenko, J. and Barbot, J.P., 1980. Geological hazards related to
offshore drilling and construction in the Oronoco River Delta of
Venezuela. Offshore Technology Conference (Houston, Texas),
Paper 3395, pp. 323-329.
Uda, T. and Hashimoto, H., 1982. Description of beach changes
using an empirical predictive model of beach profile changes.
Proceedings of the 18th Conference of Coastal Engineering
(Cape Town, South Africa), ASCE, pp. 1405-1418.
Paper in Proceedings with Editor
Masselink, G., Turner, I.L., Conley, D.C., Ruessink, B.G., Matias,
A., Thompson, C., Castelle, B. and Wolters, G., 2013.
BARDEX II: Bringing the beach to the laboratory – again! In:
Conley, D.C., Masselink, G., Russell, P.E. and O’Hare, T.J.
(eds.), Proceedings 12th International Coastal Symposium
(Plymouth, England), Journal of Coastal Research, Special
Issue No. 65, pp. 454-460.
Theses and Dissertations
(1)
Arens, S.M., 1996. Aeolian Processes in the Dutch Foredunes.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University of Amsterdam, Ph.D.
thesis, 150p.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013
8
Masselink, et al.
Worthy, M.C., 1980. Littoral Zone Processes at Old Woman
Creek Estuary of Lake Erie. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State
University, Master's thesis, 198p.
Books with Author(s)
Roberts, N., 1989. The Holocene, an Environmental History.
Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 316p.
Fisk, H.N., 1944. Geological Investigations of the Alluvial Valley
of the Lower Mississippi River. Vicksburg, Mississippi: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Mississippi River Commission, 78p.
Diaz, H.F. and Markgraf, V., (eds.), 1992. El Niño Historical and
Paleoclimatic Aspects of the Southern Oscillation. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 321p.
Books without Specific Author
McClelland Engineering Staff, 1979. Interpretation and
Assessment of Shallow Geologic and Geotechnical Conditions.
Caracas, Venezuela: McClelland Engineering, Inc., Orinoco
Regional Survey Areas, Offshore Orinoco Delta, Venezuela,
Volume 1, 109p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Staff, 1994. The Long
Island Sound Study: Summary of the Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication, EPA 842-S-94001, 62p.
Chapter in an Edited Book
Colin, C. and Bourles, B., 1992. Western boundary currents in
front of French Guiana. In: Prost, M.T. (ed.), Évolution des
littoraux de Guyane et de la zone Carïbe méridonale pedant le
Quaternaire. Paris, France: Institute Française de Recherche
Scientifique pour la Développment en Coopération, pp. 73-91.
Maps or Charts
Beltrán, C., 1993. Mapa neotectónico de Venezuela. Caracas,
Venezuela: Departmento de Ciencias de la Tierra, scale
1:2,000,000, 1 sheet.
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 65, 2013